If you are a conspiracy theorist then this is your true calling. Feminism has no parrelell. Its misery is the most demoralising and so comprehensively debasing its incomparable to anything. And they are right here at stormfront.

Yeah, sure. I'll provide for you, hold doors for you, pull your seat out for you, etc.
But when it comes to debating politics and the like I'll just ignore you or deem you uneducated on the subject.
Would you like that?

Why not both, every man I've known has had no problems figuring it out. They weren't all, "Oh, you're educated, self-supporting, and know your sh!t, so you don't deserve any kindness and courtesy."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl Radl

They don't really explain why the workplace is superior to the home, but instead tend to make vague general claims about improving the lot of women, independence and so forth.

If they cared about improving the lot of women, they'd listen to both sides, the women who want a more "traditional" life, and the ones who want to become scientists or whatever, and figure out ways to benefit both. Help women figure out how to balance work, family, school, etc., rather than just shunning one for the other. But, as I said in a previous post, all ideologies make the same mistake - they are really only about their own ideals and anyone who conforms to that, rather than they are about the people, like they claim.

The women killed in the witchcraft craze, there were plenty of men that were killed, what about them? The first person killed in Salem was a man.

Quote:

It is probably worth me noting that both Engels and Marx (not to mention others like Edward Aveling [Marx's English son-in-law and first English translator of 'Das Kapital']) were opposed to Feminism and held archaic views on women even for mid-late Victorian England.

I figured that out by the fact they were making women into different kinds of slaves, that really says it all. I don't see much of women making strides during that time. Actually, the only talented women I know of were the ones afraid to express their talents due to FEAR during Communism. Compare that with womens' achievements during the times they were supposedly "oppressed."

Quote:

Anyway: just to note but if you look up traditional German, Norse and Celtic family units then you'll find that they balance the family, state and individual incredibly well. Even then I'd add that they are probably more advantageous to the woman than to the man: the 'patriarchy' is in reality an invention of feminist thinkers based on some (not all) of the attitudes expressed by early modern and victorian societies in Europe towards women. It leaves out huge chunks of history

Oh, I know, I've read up on German, Norse, Celtic society. I really don't think a "patriarchy," in the sense that feminists think of it, existed. Misogyny in individuals has always existed, but I don't believe there was ever some systematic oppression against women.

The truth is, I do understand a lot of what this Zhukov's Heir is saying, about how women are regarded, etc. How he goes about expressing it and what he advocates in place of it....no.

I'm just gonna pop my nose in here where it doesn't belong and make a couple quick comments.

Quote:

Simply eliminated by boiled it down to its essential proposition: the feminist wishes to replace the 'drudgery' of the home with the drudgery of the office/factory. They don't really explain why the workplace is superior to the home, but instead tend to make vague general claims about improving the lot of women, independence and so forth.

Geebus that made me go I thought that was a really excellent point.

The other thing I wanted to raise was if anyone has actually studied the witchburnings, it is by far more complex a topic than any one historian or feminist or pagan can explain. Suffice it to say, begin with the Malleus Maleficarum. I read it as a teen, freaking crazy.

Witchburnings were originally heretic burnings; a lot of those heretics were jews. Burnings were also uncommon; most common in Scotland and Germany. "Witchburnings" is a misnomer; first, because it was usually heretic burnings and witches were thrown in the mix as *part* of the heretics/heresies and also they were focused on later. Second: because most witches were hanged not burned (or "crushed", which is our version of stoning: where you're placed under a massive weight and literally crushed, or pressed, to death. Male "witches" were more often killed in this way. Yes. Men were accused of witchcraft as well.)

Witches were also killed in the trials to prove their innocence as well, and in the torture for confessions.

explain. Suffice it to say, begin with the Malleus Maleficarum. I read it as a teen, freaking crazy.

I've read that before, too.

Correct, men got killed during the witch craze, also. I posted that above but it got stuck in the quotations box because this laptop sucks ass.

There are various interesting books about the witch trials in both Europe and Salem, none of it having to do with women getting burned for being outspoken, or whatever. Unless "outspoken" meant being a heretic.

Thank you: although to be fair I didn't originate the breakdown, but rather Robert Thurston did (I've just used it ever since I read it as it breaks the feminist argument's back in one fell swoop).

Quote:

The other thing I wanted to raise was if anyone has actually studied the witchburnings, it is by far more complex a topic than any one historian or feminist or pagan can explain.

Well no: what you mean is that isn't a mono-causal situation, not that it cannot be explained by anyone person (scholar or otherwise), but rather that different trials have different causes. You cannot reasonably assign a blanket cause over all of them, but rather can only work from micro-history up to look at similarities. The Pendle Witch Trial in 1612/1613 arose; for example, out of a mix of local rivalry between Catholic and Calvinist gentry for favour and a love affair (see Lumby's 'The Lancashire Witch Craze' for the most cogent recounting of the affair).

When you say pagan; and I am one, you mean Murray's famous 'witch cult' thesis I presume (to which many 'pagans' and 'witches' adhere rationally or otherwise): if so then there has been some support for it uncovered by Carlo Ginzburg in his 'Night Battles', but this appears to be a highly localised phenomenon in Italy and certainly not the picture that Murray later developed in her less famous and far less lucid work ‘God of the Witches’. As Hutton rightly remarked in his ‘The Pagan Religions’: Murray seems to have had little knowledge of English law or legal boundaries in her work as she would have immediately realised they disprove her thesis.

Quote:

Suffice it to say, begin with the Malleus Maleficarum.

Hmmm: I wouldn't recommend it as although it is the most famous and the original systematic treatise on the subject (replaced later by Bodin’s Demonologie and Boguet's Examen of Witches) it is neither the first (that is Johann Nider's work ‘Forminarius’ [which is also a good read as it talks a lot about the jews]) nor truly representative of other texts (Institoris appears to have been mentally ill and likely was a sexually repressed homosexual given his almost psychotic hatred of women [this only comes through if you read his latin as the violent hatred isn't well expressed in English without considerably extending the work]). Suffice to say Dworkin and feminists in general tend to quote the Malleus not the more common 'demon-hunting' manuals. It is also worth reading the contemporary skeptics of the witch trials such as Johann Weyer and Reginald Scot.

You'd be better starting with Guazzo’s Compendium Maleficarum or Bodin’s Demonologie than the Malleus: as they are more representative, philosophical and less extreme.

Quote:

I read it as a teen, freaking crazy.

It is relatively sane actually if you take its premises to be true: if you don't then; like Galen's medical ideas, then it just appears to be plain old nuttery.

Quote:

Witchburnings were originally heretic burnings; a lot of those heretics were jews.

Hmmm: not strictly speaking true. To be sure there is cross-over among the witch and heretic trials, but it does not follow (as has been shown by specific studies) that those who were judged as heretics were also judged to be witches: however one needs to draw the distinction that having significant religious minorities does not seem to have been a major factor in determining where witch trials were held. For example in Essex in England there was an awful lot of witch trials, but they did not target the substantial Puritan (i.e. heretical) minority only the less rigorous Protestant majority.

I don’t know where you are getting the idea that a lot of the heretics were jews: as unless you are talking very early Christianity (way before the witch trial era) that simply doesn’t make much sense: although it would if you were equating the old Judaizing heresy with being a jew (which is incorrect as Judaism doesn’t accept them as jewish and at the very best either a convert or Noahide).

Quote:

Burnings were also uncommon;

This is incorrect: burnings were the rule in all but England (where hanging was used) and Sweden where the witches were beheaded with a sword then burnt (see Ankarloo’s work). Witches were burnt as standard practice in Scotland, France, Flanders, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Portugal etc. What differs is the execution rate.

Quote:

most common in Scotland and Germany.

Hmmm: Germany yes, but Scotland not so much (see Larner's 'Enemies of God'). France was where you got a lot of burnings as well: most famously in Alsace-Lorraine and Franche Comte.

Quote:

"Witchburnings" is a misnomer; first, because it was usually heretic burnings and witches were thrown in the mix as *part* of the heretics/heresies and also they were focused on later.

Well witchcraft, heresy and rebellion tended to be thrown together: it does not therefore follow that they were actually all of the three.

A good example is the comparison made by those fighting against the covenanters in Scotland in the 17th/18th century where they said they were all three. Also numerous witch-theory texts; Bodin and Remy are classic examples, conflated all three together as if one was a witch then because one was therefore a member of an anti-Christian religious conspiracy with the devil as a diety then one inevitably was a heretic and a rebel.

I have read nothing to make me think that any individual case shows the characteristics of all three: as one often finds heretics being tried as witches, but there is no evidence that they were actually that or rebels but rather only in the perceptions of their accusers they were such.

Quote:

Second: because most witches were hanged not burned (or "crushed", which is our version of stoning: where you're placed under a massive weight and literally crushed, or pressed, to death.

Hmmm: where are you thinking of? England is the locale they tended to be hanged and weren't burnt (well at least not by any judicial proceedings) while in France, Germany and Sweden (I think) they tended to be burnt (regardless of whether they were strangled or beheaded beforehand).

Quote:

Male "witches" were more often killed in this way. Yes. Men were accused of witchcraft as well.)

Only in the early phase, but it again differed from trial to trial from region to region. In Russia for example they didn't really have a comparable concept of 'witch' and worked with the idea of a sorcerer who was almost always male and executed. In some quite big trials like that of Dr. Fian ('Newes from Scotland 1591') for raising a tempest against James VI/I the principal antagonist was male not female.

Men were more likely to be accused of being sorcerers than witches, while women were most likely to be accused of the later not the former. To quote some figures the general ratio around the witch-hunts is 75% of those executed were women, but this did range up to 90% and down to 15% in some areas. The feminist concept of the witch trials; and history in general, makes little sense outside of that of a purely propagandistic claim.

Quote:

Witches were also killed in the trials to prove their innocence as well,

Hmmm: that's somewhat ambiguous, but I presume you mean trial by water? If so then that was abandoned by law quite some time before the witch trials came about (as Langbein has pointed out in several of his works). See Levack's 'The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe' (2nd ed) for a summary of the legal procedures used and the role torture played.

Quote:

and in the torture for confessions.

True enough, but one should remember that torture was used exceptionally in witch trials precisely because the law was unable to find any other way to prove a mental crime as European law then relied heavily on witnesses so without the possibility of many witnesses the authorities were left with one legal option: confession. Confession of course could only be brought about by coercion and coercion meant at that time: torture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HelveFrost

The women killed in the witchcraft craze, there were plenty of men that were killed, what about them? The first person killed in Salem was a man.

True enough, but as I said above male suspects tended to be looked upon as sorcerers rather than witches, but there were quite a few men tried and found guilty of witchcraft particularly in the early period of the witch trials. Feminists ignore them and focus on the female victims of the witch hunts: much as they tend to ignore the urban rather than the rural hunts because they conform less to their expectations.

Quote:

The truth is, I do understand a lot of what this Zhukov's Heir is saying, about how women are regarded, etc

Misogyny has always been common on the radical right precisely because of the ideological positions that are common within in it: strong conservatism and a preference for traditional values. I'd postulate that where the traditional values come from (i.e. the ideal period used) stipulate; in general, what the positions are going to be regarding women.

The left however does precisely the opposite: it goes into loony mode and doesn't even allow men to remark on a woman's beauty or attractiveness as that is 'objectification' and therefore the 'degradation' of women. One would not be stretching it too far to suggest that feminists and the Left want women and men to go into a drab communal scenario reminiscent of that drawn by Sir Thomas More in his ‘Utopia’ where all men and women wore the same, grey clothes so that one could not be jealous of another’s beauty and/or worldly positions.

The Left pay no attention to science or practical application as a rule of thumb, as they tend to live in a world dominated by abstract and often theologically-derived conceptions of the world. The Left only applies science when it is trying to attack something it doesn’t like hence Marx’s belief that Darwin would find his ‘Das Kapital’ (1st Vol) to be of similar importance to his ‘The Origin of Species’ (indeed Isaiah Berlin [a jew surprise surprise] in his original edition of ‘Karl Marx: His Life and Environment’ claimed that Darwin was an admirer of Marx, but later corrected himself [one still finds the claim spouted by some self-styled ‘revolutionary’ though]). Both Marx and Engels tended to refer to Darwin as having ‘disproved religion’, but thought little beyond that (although Engels did claim that Marx was a scientist of the stature of Darwin in his speech at Marx’s funeral): much as their intellectual descendants today typically only resort to science when it furthers their ideological goals rather than as their first point of reference (although they oft claim to be scientists they don’t and cannot follow the scientific method).

If the Left paid attention to what the realisation; which they claim to support and further, that the human is an animal like any other then they would discover that it demonstrates why Leftist theory as a rule of thumb can never work, because it goes against what nature tells us will happen and indeed has happened to every leftist experiment to do the opposite.

Misogyny has always been common on the radical right precisely because of the ideological positions that are common within in it: strong conservatism and a preference for traditional values. I'd postulate that where the traditional values come from (i.e. the ideal period used) stipulate; in general, what the positions are going to be regarding women.

I don't think being traditional, or wanting that is misogynistic, at all. It has more to do with the attitude about and toward any woman that deviates from that. Just on this board alone, I've seen some visciousness aimed at such women, including myself. Even some articles I've read regarding women and White Nationalism seem a bit condescending (I know I've used that word a lot, just don't know what else to refer to it as).

Quote:

it goes against what nature tells us will happen and indeed has happened to every leftist experiment to do the opposite.

Much of what Zhukov's Heir proposes goes WAY BEYOND against Nature, for sure.

Hello once again Stormfront. I apologize for not getting to many of your arguments in my other thread. But rest assured that I will attempt to address your questions properly in this one. Now, in my last thread I outlined how white nationalism was intrinsically oppressive. I then described how many people would be affected negatively by white nationalist policies, including women, homosexuals and minorities (obviously). However I was to save the discussion regarding homosexuals and minorities for another thread and instead I would like to focuson the issue of gender.

I don't think I'm the only one here who has noticed that there are serious issues in your movement regarding women. I've noticed the objectification (and subsequent commodification) of women throughout this board. I've noticed the blatant rejection of feminism. White nationalist men enforce gender roles to absurd extents. They push the concept of classical feminimity to such an absurd extent that it actually begins to hurt women who differ from the female archetype. We've all seen it, although some of you may choose to deny it. I personally believe that the only way to truly liberate women is to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism (and eventually communism), where women are completely independent of men. But total liberation is when gender as we know it ceases to exist (it is after all a social construct). Both things which can only be brought about through a Marxist program. Obviously Marxism is the true path to liberation. White nationalism will just lead to further oppression.

I hope the women of this site can at least see that WN leaders don't have their best interest in mind. Read Shumalith Firestone, Marx, Lenin and Marcuse if you're truly interested in liberation ladies.

May you die a horrible and slow death. I have more than enough love and appreciation for women. I have no mercy for red traitors.

I'm not going to dignify the OP's statement with a remark. He's a tool.....I mean Troll, whatever.

What I would like to say, is it's rare to find a WN woman who is the best of both worlds. Fortunately, I've found her......the Mrs.

Strong of will, iron spine, steadfast in her beliefs. She has worked outside the home, and now relishes her role as a stay at home mom.

She has raised our children, and instilled the values we both hold dear. She is my partner. I am the man of this house, home, and family, and she supports that.

She also continuously pushes me to be the best that I can be. "Good enough" is NEVER good enough for her. She praises my successes, and helps support me through my failures. She is the conscience of this family. We would be lost without her.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the POWER of a WHITE WOMAN. Strong, Supportive, Independant, Loving, and Caring.

My, what a surprise. I had specifically expressed my personal disappointment to the OP at the fact that my post had yet to be addressed by his no doubt staggering Red 'intellect'. As of yet, he has made no attempt to 'critique' any of it.

Whatever is the matter, 'Zhukov's Heir'? Here it is again, reposted for your convenience. Have at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A White guy

Homosexuality can be, and often is, the result of a sexually abusive childhood. If homosexuality had a purely genetic basis, it wouldn't exist, would it? True homosexuals do not have children of their own, so it stands to reason that a lot of homosexuals have been made, not born. Homosexuals are also more likely to become paedophiles, supporting, inter alia, my former statement.

Given that, I am willing to guess that homosexuality wouldn't be much of a problem in a White Nationalist community anyway, as we would not expose ourselves or our children to the kind of garbage that you people allow your weak minds to become subverted by.

Communism was an ideological tool to get the Proles to do all of the dirty work for the controllers. That's all it was and still is. What did it lead to? Equality? Freedom? Nope, nothing but death and destruction. The brutality of the Jewish triumph in Russia has yet to find it's equal in the annals of history. Christian women were burnt alive, had the unborn foetuses cut out of their wombs, had their eyes burnt out with hot fire pokers. It is the single most vile Semitic lie that has ever been devised. If every single human being on this planet was an infallibly good-natured, intelligent, hard-working paragon of virtue and righteousness, Communism (which includes, by extension, it's associated pseudo-ideology of feminism) would make more sense. As it stands, though, it is a complete joke and will always have it's bloody legacy as the most destructive and failed ideology of all time. It killed untold millions of completely innocent people.

The feminism that you refer to is not about combating 'the oppression of women'. It is just about driving another wedge between the Aryan man and the Aryan woman. If it was really about the welfare of women, why don't the feminists condemn pornography, instead of proclaiming participation in it to be 'liberating'? The Jews have a monopoly on both, that's why. When you repress natural sexuality between the Aryan male and female, under the guise of feminism, you can then profit from the inevitable sex industry that will be created, via the frustrated male consumers and the 'liberated' female workers. Plus, does anyone notice how it is only White women that are being targeted by this pseudo-ideological trash?

I do hope that the WN women of this board take note of what I have said, and I also hope that they can see the opening that they provide for the enemy when they start whining on about misogyny, et cetera, when in fact it is dealt with extremely harshly on this board, as I have learned to my cost before, when discussing the 'tendencies' of contemporary Aryan women. Get your act together, ladies... you are either WN or you aren't.

I don't think being traditional, or wanting that is misogynistic, at all.

No, but being a conservative and/or traditonalist means you inevitably have a period of history you look to as being the best time/golden age and if that period was one that did see or is perceived as seeing women in misogynistic terms then one is far more likely to become so.

Quote:

It has more to do with the attitude about and toward any woman that deviates from that. Just on this board alone, I've seen some visciousness aimed at such women, including myself.

That's typical of any group: I doubt it is so much aimed at women but rather as in-group/out-group reaction where if someone has expressed a view that somebody takes strong issue with then they may relate it to their being female (or male) [I've seen both on 'WN' boards]. Whether or not that expresses personal misogyny I'd suggest can only be ascertained on a case-by-case basis not as a blanket statement.

Quote:

Even some articles I've read regarding women and White Nationalism seem a bit condescending (I know I've used that word a lot, just don't know what else to refer to it as).

That's probably a mix of poor style and men being naturally paternalistic: you see it in across the political spectrum to be frank. A lot of the people who write on issues like these tend to do so like they would a forum post without taking into account the lessons that rhetoric and propaganda have to teach us: oh well.

Quote:

Much of what Zhukov's Heir proposes goes WAY BEYOND against Nature, for sure.

Are you surprised? He's probably one of the kind of Marxists who believe that the great Ukrainian famine is a myth created by crypto-fascist capitalist media bosses (aka the Stalin Society).

Good thing to ask a Stalinist: what do they think of Stalin's ineffable pronouncements on the issue of linguistics and do they offer original scholarly insight into the issue. Their responses are usually entertaining.